Cue Trump's de Minimis Refund Sh*tshow

Despite Trump slow-walking the refunds owed to the Americans who had to pay his illegal import taxes, legal clarity about getting refunds appears to be on the way, at least for those who were hit the hardest.

But what of the large number of individuals slammed by the taxes when Trump ended the de minimis exemption for items worth under $800.00?

Oddly enough, lots of them aren't happy, and they're not behaving like well-oiled wheels about it.

They want their money back.

Fortunately for most, major shippers who paid the tariffs before passing them on plan to repay them as soon as they have clarity on their own refunds from the government:

Natasha Amadi, a spokeswoman for United Parcel Service, said the company would support customers in obtaining refunds of IEEPA tariffs once a legal framework was established, adding that this applied to "customers of all sizes."

In a statement, Glennah Ivey-Walker, a spokeswoman for DHL, said that when there was legal guidance for the refund process, the company would "communicate with our customers and take appropriate actions." ...

This is fortunate for them, and good business for the shippers, but there is still plenty of chaos left to go around. Some shippers charged processing fees, which customers want returned along with the tariff loot. People who paid tariffs to overseas entities clearly won't have legal recourse.

Indicative of the confusion, the report discusses people who got screwed by tariffs at the retail level, even though the de minimis exemption has nothing to do with the vast majority of these people. That said, folks who had to pay higher prices at retailers might see lower prices, rather than refunds, if Costco is an indication. (As prices wouldn't show a tax component, this makes sense, but lots of people won't see it.)

And, predictably, class action lawsuits are about to start flying around.

Come November, don't forget that Trump and his party are all in for Round Two, even though they already know the new tariffs are also illegal, and the refund fight is just a small part of what they are putting us through.

-- CAV

Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. LTE RE: "Donald Trump, Pagan King", by Peter Schwartz (New York Times):

Leighton Woodhouse maintains that Judeo-Christian ethics are "the basis for the American Declaration of Independence." But the opposite is true.

180 words/1 minute

2. "Rights Are Just 'Words on a Page' if Federal Agents Can Ignore Them," by Agustina Vergara Cid (The Orange County Register):

"I'm a [U.S.] citizen, I'm just trying to get to work," [George Retes] said. [Attorney Marie] Miller says George even told the agents where his ID was inside the car. "No one seemed interested," she stated. "They didn't seem to disbelieve him. They just seemed to not care."

This seeming indifference from federal agents regarding the questionable legality of their purported actions -- not to mention their brutality -- should alarm every American.

900 words/3 minutes

3. "ICE Tyranny Is What Democracy Looks Like," by Benjamin Bayer (The Orange County Register):

"Remember: the Athenian democracy voted to put Socrates to death." -- Ben Bayer (Image via via Wikipedia, public domain.)

... The Founders gave us not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, a system premised on limiting government's function solely to protecting the individual's rights.

The laws Trump is enforcing are not "undemocratic." But they do violate constitutional rights. Even non-citizens have a right to liberty. Laws restricting immigrant labor violate the freedom to work and engage in trade. But these are freedoms Democrats long ago sold down the river when they sought ever-increasing regulations on the freedom of businessmen.

If Trump's ICE now assaults procedural rights like due process, it's because he like so many other Presidents have habituated action by executive order...

950 words/3 minutes

4. "'Man's Life' as the Standard of Value in the Ethics of Aristotle and Ayn Rand," by Gregory Salmieri (Book Chapter from Two Philosophers: Aristotle and Ayn Rand, edited by James G. Lennox and Gregory Salmieri):

In the first two sections of this [chapter], I elucidate the content of the human form of life as understood by Aristotle and Rand, respectively. In my third section, I show how the differences in their view of Man's Life reflect (and contribute to) different views of how a form of life can serve as an ethical standard. These differences, in turn, have implications for the extent to which their respective moral philosophies provide objective guidance rooted in knowledge of human nature, rather than merely systematizing existing mores or reading them into human nature. Accordingly, I close with a discussion of the objectivity of what each thinker regards as moral knowledge.

13,600 words/45 minutes

-- CAV

Tough (Nerd) Love for a 'Manosphere' Victim

With my kids rapidly approaching dating age and being well aware that I might well be a poor source of advice on it, I keep an antenna out for advice on that matter.

A favorite writer who focuses on such advice is Harris O'Malley, a.k.a., Dr. Nerdlove, and he hit one out of the park earlier this year when someone who listens to the likes of Andrew Tate showed up with a question to the effect of, "Help, science says I'm doomed to be single!"

I really appreciate two things about his letter, the first of them being what is really an all-purpose calling-out of people who wrongly claim that "science" backs them up:

Leaving aside that this leads me to think that the source was a study from Dude, Trust Me University or Dr. ChatGPT, the rare times that people do post a particular study, it becomes clear that they didn't actually read it beyond someone else's summary. The conclusions people derive tend to have very little to do with the study's conclusions and usually involves either overlooking the way the data is misunderstood, small sample sizes, poor-to-non-existent controls, self-report surveys, the authors saying "the results are within the margin of error and so are indicative of more experimentation" and occasional straight up P-hacking.

This he follows up with an intelligent discussion of -- gasp! -- an actual paper written by actual scientists.

But O'Malley isn't done, because the question betrays a deeper problem than ignorance about science.

There is also an astounding degree of ignorance about oneself by the questioner that can't be answered except by introspection, which Dr. Nerdlove successfully points out and motivates, assuming the letter writer really is interested in finding female companionship:

Ah, because it means that -- if we accept your premise -- you are "stuck" dating someone who is also of average looks. Let's put aside the assumption that this somehow means that the "average" women are not good looking and instead focus on what you don't seem to realize that you're saying.

Because I don't think it has occurred to you that, as you're complaining that your looks condemn you to date someone who isn't exceptional looking ... you're expecting someone who is exceptional looking to be willing to overlook your average appearance. Not to put too fine a point on it but ... why is that ok for them but not for you? Why are you asking them to give you grace and see beyond your average appearance, when you aren't willing to do the same? Why -- again, if we accept your premise -- is it not ok for an exceptionally attractive woman to prefer dating an exceptionally attractive man, when you yourself also want to date an exceptionally attractive woman? You would think that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Well, the answer here is obvious: because of what it says about you. This is the core of what Red Pill and masculinity influencers peddle: the anxiety of being somehow "lesser" among men. If you are the sort of person who can "only" date "average" women and not dimes who make your friends and peers and randos jealous ... well, clearly you're not a Top G Alpha Player. You're just some Average Frustrated Chump, to dip back into ancient PUA parlance.

While I would hope that no child of mine ends up being this clueless, I remember being a child and a young adult. Introspection and seeing things from the perspective of others are learned skills, and many aspects of our culture discourage both.

Being aware of the latest ways people are being pressured to conform can't hurt, and this example clearly shows both that real adults aren't what Ayn Rand called second-handers, and that being second-handed is hardly the way to achieve happiness. Only by knowing oneself, and respecting the fact that relationships involve shared values can one really hope to find or be worthy of a romantic partner.

-- CAV

Return of Tariff Loot Not Unprecedented

There may be good news for Americans who paid Trump's "emergency" IEEPA tariffs: The Court of International Trade, which ruled the tariffs illegal before The Supreme Court concurred, has relevant experience dealing with a similar situation:

Nearly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated something called the Harbor Maintenance Tax as it applied to exported goods. There were as many as 100,000 potential claimants after the high court's March 1998 decision. It fell to the trade court to handle the refunds question. By late 2000, businesses had received more than $730 million. A central figure back then remains a key trade court judge today.

Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee with a fondness for hiking, sat on the original three-judge panel that heard the challenge to the harbor tax and was then assigned to devise an orderly process for administering refunds after it had been in effect for more than 10 years.

With hundreds of cases before the court, she zeroed in on one test case to govern them all.

"When we had the experience with them back then, it worked out," said lawyer Brian Goldstein, who represented the retail conglomerate that challenged the tax, the U.S. Shoe Corp. "I do believe that the court will, together with the party litigants, fashion a program and process of refund. I don't know how long it will take."

This is good news, and somewhat amusing, as it is a direct result of the Trump Administration attempting to delay paying the refunds. The court in that case sent the matter of how refunds would be paid to the CIT.

-- CAV

The Endangerment Finding: Down, But Not Out

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Steve Milloy of Junk Science explains that the recent rescission of the EPA's Endangerment Finding is far from Job Done to save the American fossil fuel industry:

West Virginia v. EPA ... didn't explicitly overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because the red-state litigants never specifically raised the issue, and the Supreme Court chose to rule as narrowly as possible.

So, here's the problem: While the Trump EPA is now saying that the Obama endangerment finding is illegal under the holding in West Virginia v. EPA (i.e., no congressional authorization), Massachusetts v. EPA remains on the books as good law.

Simply rescinding the Obama decision, as the Trump EPA just did, is technically just a change in policy, not a change in the operative law. In the event that Democrats win the White House in 2028, you can bet they will reinstate the endangerment finding as soon as possible in 2029, citing Massachusetts v. EPA in doing so. [links omitted, bold added]

Here we go again.

Such are the hazards of making the "biggest deregulatory move in history" by fiat, executive or administrative.

Milloy explains what Trump needs to do to cement this good part of his legacy, and that's to have the Justice Department challenge Massachusetts v. EPA and the EPA rescind a separate endangerment finding that applies to stationary sources of greenhouse emissions.

-- CAV

P.S. For the various Trump people who come by from time to time to complain to me when I criticize Trump/don't criticize the Democrats (whom he too frequently imitates) enough, this is two days in a row I have concurred with something he has done, and wanted that thing to be as effective as possible.

We're Finally Fighting Back

Will it be enough?

Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched widespread, coordinated attacks against Iran. The apparent aims are of neutering that country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, and toppling its theocratic regime, which has been at war with both countries and the West in general ever since 1979.

Yaron Brook's initial reaction. Commentary starts about 1:50.

It's about time, and I have heard that the top echelon of its leadership, including "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamanei, died during an incredibly short time span.

Good riddance.

The case for attacking Iran -- something that should have been done decades ago -- is clear-cut. Less so is whether the sitting President -- a thoroughly corrupt and amoral whim-worshiper -- will carry through this endeavor to the point that Iran no longer poses a threat to the West.

Worse, as clear as it is that we should obliterate this regime, it is equally clear that Trump does not have the authority to order military operations of this magnitude without Congressional approval. I am concerned that Congress will either fail to offer its belated authorization or even attempt to end our participation in this war before it has been prosecuted to the extent it should be.

I can only hope our militaries do enough damage before things change enough politically that the regime is effectively done, and the Iranian people are able to establish the freer, rights-respecting government they seem to want. By its nature, such a government would be at minimum cease being a threat, and would likely be friendly to our countries and its neighbors. At worse, almost any other government would at least be less of a threat.

Having noted my own reaction to this generally welcome turn of events, I'll end with a short listing of items I gleaned over the weekend, in no particular order:

• A Rundown on the War as of 2-28 -- roles of U.S. and Israeli forces, objectives, Iranian retaliation notes, Iranian casualties not yet known
• Garry Kasparov -- the good of waging this war and the bad of who's in charge in a nutshell
• Agustina Vergara Cid -- expresses qualified agreement with Ilya Somin's analysis of the constitutionality of the war and its feasibility as a means of achieving regime change
• Adam Mossoff -- counters Ilya Somin's assessment of the wisdom and morality of the attacks

Although I have not yet had the opportunity to listen to any of Yaron Brook's so far daily updates on the war, I am looking forward to them and unreservedly recommend them, based on his past commentary in general and on the Hamas war in particular. Brook's initial reaction is embedded above.

-- CAV

Four Neat Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. The site hackernews.love, based on comments from the knowledgeable readers at Hacker News, showcases the successful innovations that received pelters there, way back when.

For each success, there are several quotes, such as "It does not seem very 'viral' or income-generating." -- Brandon M, followed by the market's contrary verdict, e.g., "Dropbox IPO'd in 2018 at a $12B valuation. Drew Houston later thanked BrandonM by name when Dropbox went public."

2. By coincidence, I learned about two more ways to employ the humble bathroom mirror as a reminder, one digital and one analog.

Looking for a better way to display my calendar, I learned that some people employ smart mirrors for the task.

On the other end of the technology spectrum -- if you discount the technology behind erasable markers -- Heloise recommends using those.

I just use post-it notes myself, but I love the idea that there are people out there using smart mirrors!

3. Allison Green's recent post on workplace romance includes a few that worked out very well. She calls my favorite of the lot "the sandwich maneuver."

4. Years ago, the Internet Djinni granted my wish -- in the form of a site called junkyarddog.com -- for a cheap Mercedes part after my wife had a fender-bender in the car she was borrowing from her Dad.

I thought they'd disappeared, but in the process of writing this post, I learned otherwise.

I guess now, rather than mere relief at discovering a "replacement," I get to appreciate the fact that there are at least two good ways to find car parts on the internet

Based on a search for a part I recently had to replace in my car, they are different-enough from each other that they might be good for different needs.

See my previous post for how I used Junkyard Dog. Car-Part.com provides a list of dealers and prices, instead, and includes new parts.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected URL to link in Item 4.